belowavgiq

If the user above got what he wished, it'd be 0.90. That's what I'm talking about. This is a topic where one needs to know how to read, my nagging friend.

Not sure, I think it may be more about half your women in their 40s staying single and childless vs 1% 50 years ago, but don't quote me on that!

That's very obtuse, there is always time to make more CASH, but there isn't to reverse a culture where having 0 children is normal and encouraged.

I agree! But I just like using them to drive points across. Practical examples drive points across much better than some generalizations that take 10x as many words to be expressed.

exactly. so in 2150, or 2200, or someday, it will be a problem. So yes, it is a problem even today. It's kind of why you don't stand on train tracks even if there are still 15 minutes.

Future problems need to be fixed, else you end up as the countries you listed, Korea and Germany. It's not that hard

People are people, they live their lives, and there is no mastermind behind them. That is a given. But there is a common culture and country wide patterns that can still be observed.

I'm honestly very glad to hear it won't be too bad but I reaaaaallly do not really care about numbers, my point is much broader.

I'd prefer if it didn't have to go through this at all. Knowing you are headed for bad times isn't something to live with, it's something to fix. And it's not like the birth rates in each state are staying the same, they are actively dropping. The issue isn't just there, it's also getting worse.

Why? What's so bad about India? Their people are young and positive, the west is ancient and past its peak. It's a very simple point actually.

Oops, I was a little too implicit.

made 40 years... before they (India) started developing.

Western countries were at the forefront of this already in the 80s. India, starting to develop much later, had a big time buffer to learn from that and at least attempt to avoid it.

This is an hyperbole, yes. Replace the 100 million value with 300, 400, 500, and my point isnt going to change.

True, let's put it this way then. In some time, there will be 1.2 billion >80 year olds and 100 million people under 18.

You see, I know it's hard to grasp for some, but everything is really relative.

You said it yourself, nearly, so it's not something written in stone.

I can fault India (and, in particular, Modi) for repeating the same mistake all other western developed countries made 40 years before, yes.

India's ongoing growth, and overall the positive sentiment of the population, is such a breath of fresh air compared to the decadent west. I have had a few friends from there for almost a decade and the improvement has been huge. It's just a shame that you are also speedrunning population collapse. Modi completely ignoring the cratering birth rates under him is a real hero.

Yup, and this is my age range. I guess I should have specified, knowing the average age on HN is... just a little higher to say the least. But to a progressively lower extent it applies to older generations as well.

Wait wait wait, you are from an older generation, so yes it somewhat (older people here do see each other often even when married, and the middle/high school friends are often for life. moving out? ha) doesn't apply to you.

I am indeed quite a lot younger, and in my personal experience the social skills of many (yes, of course, not all) younger Americans have been absolutely destroyed by the internet and some other things that I can't mention.

Edit: oops I skimmed too fast and missed some parts.